I don't get Atheism

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing I find strange about non-believers (atheism) is the same strange thing I find about believers (religious). Both actually believe in something without proof. Atheist believe God or a higher power does not exist but they can not prove it. Religious types believe a God or higher power does exist and also can not prove it.

For me personally, I'm agnostic. Is there a God or higher power? I don't know. But if I had to choose which (atheisim or Religon) is more logically based, I'd have to go with atheism. A leap of faith is just that.

I cannot prove so many things. In the absence of any proof, I assume it is not there. That goes for anything like the chupacabra, string theory, or invisible and powerful gods. I know I could be wrong. I could be wrong about any belief of mine. If there is absolutely no proof, that doesn't make it more likely. Many scientific theories cannot currently be proven. Some are believable to me because I can see the science it's based on, and the logic. Something like the string theory doesn't have any proof and doesn't follow enough logic. I assume it's impossible, but I could be wrong.

I see that religion has a place for a lot of people. If they're the religious who help others and make peace, I'm all for it. I honestly have very little tolerance for believers who get indignant about people who believe something different. It's like saying I'm vegan, but eating a steak while deriding anyone who's not a vegetarian. Saying it does not make something true.

[Anonymous]

If you believe in things because can't prove that it doesn't exist, then do you believe in pink spotted elephants? I just...don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The thing I find strange about non-believers (atheism) is the same strange thing I find about believers (religious). Both actually believe in something without proof. Atheist believe God or a higher power does not exist but they can not prove it. Religious types believe a God or higher power does exist and also can not prove it.

For me personally, I'm agnostic. Is there a God or higher power? I don't know. But if I had to choose which (atheisim or Religon) is more logically based, I'd have to go with atheism. A leap of faith is just that.

Dependens what you mean by "proof".

As much as "proof" has any meaning, yes, theories like The Germ Theory of Disease and "evolution" have been "proved". You're not going to "prove" them in the same way you prove a math problem. The fact of God's non-existence has also been "proved"--at least in the sense that generally we say a thing doesn't exist if humanity has found exactly zero evidence that that thing exists.

So, no, not really any faith to be an atheist--at least no more atheistic faith than every single religious person on the planet has towards every invented deity in history...with the exception of *their* deity.

He's, like, *totally* real, dude!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you believe in things because can't prove that it doesn't exist, then do you believe in pink spotted elephants? I just...don't.

You have to! You can't prove a negative, therefore Pinky exists! Plus I really like the idea of pink elephants; it's my favorite color.

Further evidence for the existence of Pinky!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My opinion is that atheists are cowardly. They claim believers cling to God for childish comfort, but really they are the ones who can't trust in something unless it is spelled out for them in a colored textbook. Even then I have a feeling they suspect that the next scientist/theory will disprove the ones before so refuse to go "all in" on anything.

Again, just my opinion.

All atheists claim and believe that? Any proof to back up that statement? Or, maybe it's your opinion you're trying to pass off as fact? That's all this conversation boils down to. I have an opinion based on available information, theories and facts. You have the exact available information, and your opinion is different.

Why do you have to apply negative stereotypes? That doesn't make either opinion more or less true. Does it make you feel better to talk about people like that? Can I suggest you check out the red words in your holy book? It has some guidance on how to treat others in a positive and meaningful way.

Again, my opinion.

God gives us an ideal to live up to, no one is there. That includes me.

I can see why you're super-religious. It's a lot easier to be a judgemental, shiity human being if you can point to gods and ideals, and shake your head about how we're all fallen. If you don't have gods to point to, and you act like an asshole, then guess what? You're just an asshole.

Sure, since you base your values on what feels good to you personally, I guess I'm an asshole. *shrug*

This is pretty rich comedy, given the history of Christian "values". You guys have been so darned consistent with your immutable moral laws. From slavery to marriage equality for gays, every single step of the way, you've been leading the cha.... Oh, wait, every single time you

Religion often gets called a failure when compared to science because it's predictive ability is so low in the naturalistic world. When it tries to make empirical claims about the world, it is inevitably, inerringly wrong.

But the real failure of religion--one that's pretty much plain to see for anyone not steeped in any particular religion--is just how terrible it is at making moral and ethical claims about the world. Imagine how much more quickly the arc of history would have bent towards justice if the Christian bible had stated, unequivocably, that every human being was equal in the eyes of God, and that racism, much less enslaving other humans because of racism, was a mortal sin, full stop. It's totally awesome that your religion "caught up" about two millenia *after* it was founded, but it would be nice if you guys actually had something to say about moral issues *before* everybody in the civilized world already came around.

So, please, spare me the pretensions to moral absolutism. Given the choice between getting my values out of the First Century BC Middle East Farmers' Almanac on the one hand, and basing them on "what feels good to you personally" the latter sounds much, much more preferable.

[Anonymous]

"Oh, wait, every single time you..."

....you've been bringing up the rear. Coming around after the moral bankrupcy of your position has become untenable...

[Anonymous]

I'd argue that "feel good" morality is superior to the ones found in all of the major holy books. It leaves room for considering the circumstances. Personally, I can't see any justification for a God who kills out of anger or jealousy. It's not right. I'm surprised everyday that people use the Old Testament as a guide. Taking joy in babies dashes against rocks isn't moral. Commanding your top follower to sacrifice his own child isn't moral. These things were never moral.

[Anonymous]

I suppose one could make the case that religion serves to consolidate
and package the current social mores into a digestable form. Maybe
this serves to encourage people with a stunted moral sense--people who
are somehow lacking in this otherwise basic human capacity--to hew to
the current moral standards.

As PP gets at above, if you're incapable of mapping "what feels good
to you personally" to the moral standards of the society in which
you're living, then religion may give you a compelling story within
which to "do the right thing." But, certainly, the idea of organized
religion as any sort of moral guidepost is, no offense, laughable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'd argue that "feel good" morality is superior to the ones found in all of the major holy books. It leaves room for considering the circumstances. Personally, I can't see any justification for a God who kills out of anger or jealousy. It's not right. I'm surprised everyday that people use the Old Testament as a guide. Taking joy in babies dashes against rocks isn't moral. Commanding your top follower to sacrifice his own child isn't moral. These things were never moral.

The switch from believing in an angry, vengeful god, to one who's allegedly loving and forgiving, is fascinating to me.

It's like god has some sort of severe personality disorder.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, they assume I'm dumb specifically because I'm religious. Don't act like Atheists are somehow more tolerant than religious folks because that is bullshit

Why do you care? Believe what you believe and keep on keeping on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No, they assume I'm dumb specifically because I'm religious. Don't act like Atheists are somehow more tolerant than religious folks because that is bullshit

If religion works for you and makes you happy, I'm happy for you. People have different needs.

Why do you think all atheists assume you're dumb?

[Anonymous]

See, these atheists here claim to be good humanists for the sake of personal codes, but can't stand other people unless they are the right kind of people. Funny.

[Anonymous]

I almost "could" get atheism, but not the brand of it that is often championed here.

[Anonymous]

Atheism is about choosing spirituality over than religion and dogma. The Atheists I know are more humane and without prejudice than religious people. They judge people by their deeds not their religious beliefs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I almost "could" get atheism, but not the brand of it that is often championed here.

I'm an atheist and some of the other atheists confuse me with their rabid behavior. I'm sure there are some people who share your faith that you feel the same way about.